Grandpa,

Overgeneralizing? Possibly, but if you oppose degrading the environment, you must oppose Bush’s forest plan, which is about degrading the environment in ways that will adversely affect fish production. Sorry, if I’m the first to inform you of this. I’m not fond of extemism either, which is why I’m generally opposed to Bush’s environmental policies. They are extreme. I recognize that air and water can absorb a significant amount of pollutants before the quality degrades to the point of adversely affecting human health or resources of interest. (Hell, a small amount of water pollution often improves fish habitat productivity.) But in the cases where Bush is acting, we are already past of point of environmental damage, and he is trying to increase the poisoning of your, my, and our air and water. I repeat; that is extreme.

BTW, the California fires are not related to over-zealous environmentalism. Those fires, excepting the two believed caused by arson/accident, are normal and natural to the high chapparal and pine country of southern California. The loss of human life and homes is due more to over-zealous development - building in fire-prone areas in the first place, and failing to build with the expectation of fire in the second.

If you want roads in the national forest, you must accept environmental degradation. Even without clear-cutting, the roads themselves cause much of the altered runoff and mass wasting that degrades and destroys tributary streams. You really cannot have it both ways. Sorry. BTW, I’m not opposed to forest roads. I just want vastly lower road density, better construction AND maintenance, and lower rates of timber harvest that doesn’t always include clear-cutting. I will accept some habitat degradation, because I know that the system can tolerate it, up to a point. The problem is that we are beyond that point in most areas of most forests in the PNW.

I realize that it isn’t correct to say that all Republicans are for raping the environment. It’s just that it is so very, very many of them, and that and a couple of other platform positions they advocate has pushed me toward the liberal camp that holds some positions I don’t care for all that much either, but at least they seem likely to leave the planet capable of still supporting life.


Plunker,

“Patently false and biased allegations.” ??? Who makes patently false and biased allegations? Our Commander in Chief comes to mind, with his insipid statement claiming responsibility for successful salmon returns.

It’s true that I’m a product of the 60s (and earlier for that matter), but I’m not high on acid or any other drug. I may be naive about a few things, but I’m neither stupid nor uninformed. I’m recognized by many in my field as an expert on salmonid ecology, and I have a background in physics, biology, forestry, the hydroelectric industry, hatcheries, harvest management, and plenty of exposure to political gamesmanship. I routinely work in an adversarial environment. No one has described my work as extreme. I am generally described by the parties I work with - and this has included members of the forestry and energy industries - as reasonable, fair, and a strong advocate of the fisheries resource.

You are wrong regarding Bush’s advocacy for leaving the dams in place. True, the environment is already either degraded and destroyed. However, leaving the dams in place will not recover Snake River salmon. Many populations are gone, and more will be lost, even if the lower four Snake R. dams were removed today. Saying we can have both is duplicitous. For the Snake, the sky already fell for most salmon populations.

It’s true that today’s forest practices are more earth-friendly, but don’t delude yourself by believing that they are actually good for fish. They are good for fish in the way that beating your wife less harshly than you used to is beneficial to your wife. (I’m not implying that you actually beat your wife, but am trying to strongly make this point.) More dams will be removed or decommissioned in this century, and there will likely be significant positive environmental responses.

I understand the issues associated with development, but am confused by your suggestion that people participate in development of zoning ordinances, since you seem to imply approval. The classic conservative position is to oppose zoning as the unnecessary, unconstitutional taking of private rights and property. So are you partially a closet liberal? Zoning is a very liberal idea, hated by conservatives.

I don’t expect that we’re going to change one another’s views, and that wasn’t my point. I’m just really curious how conservatives who truly value environmental quality reconcile the mutually exclusive positions they must thereby embrace. Believe me, I shudder when I consider some of the positions advocated by some of the people I’ve voted for. It’s never satisfying to simply choose a lessor evil.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.